MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964896671 · doi:10.12943/anr.2012.00016

A Monte Carlo Method for Analyzing Mixed-Lattice Substitution Experiment Using MCNP

2012· article· en· W1964896671 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
G.B. Wilkin, Blair P. Bromley, D.G. Watts

Bibliographic record

VenueAECL Nuclear Review · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)
FundersBruce Power
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodNuclear engineeringLattice (music)Nuclear dataFissionNuclear physicsSubstitution (logic)Statistical physicsPhysicsNeutronComputer scienceMathematicsEngineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Critical experiments involving a small region of test fuel substituted into a reference lattice have traditionally been analyzed using diffusion codes to extract lattice physics parameters of the test fuel such as the critical buckling and the associated bias in the calculation of keff . A method that was first developed in 2006 uses a version of MCNP that was modified to allow the analyst to selectively change fission neutron production in various parts of the model. This paper describes the modification made to MCNP, demonstrates how the substitution experiment analysis is done through several examples using data from the ZED-2 critical facility, and finally, quantifies the expected uncertainties in the method.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAECL Nuclear ReviewSame topicNuclear reactor physics and engineeringFrench-language works237,207